• tarayani

    Thank you for this thorough and very well-researched article. It made me rather angry.

    I’ve had 3 unwanted, unintentional pregnancies (despite using birth control) and in each instance I chose to do an herbal abortion to avoid having to deal with all the B.S., judgment, legal/insurance quandaries, and loss of privacy that come with taking this situation to the American healthcare system.  An herbal abortion isn’t something I’d recommend to everyone, but it’s important to know that it’s an option, and that women always have the ability to exercise their right to chose motherhood even if our governments or healthcare systems fail to protect that right.

    Of course, needing life-saving intervention due to a complication is not the same situation as having an unwanted pregnancy. I’m at least lucky enough to live in a country where non-religious life-saving medical intervention would be available if nothing else would save me. Not having that option – or having it unenforced – says much about how women’s lives are valued in so-called developed societies.

    In the same vein, it’s absurdly silly that in religions like Catholicism, men make the rules on how a woman’s pregnancy should be handled, when they have no personal understanding of pregnancy, childbirth, motherhood, maternal sacrifice, or even of women. Women absolutely need to stop accepting this.

  • crowepps

    And yet if it’s going to cost them money –

    “But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

    As Jason Langley, an attorney with Denver-based Kennedy Childs, argued in one of the briefs he filed for the defense, the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”



Mobile Theme